Majority of Americans Want Swedish-Style Democracy and Income (Tax) Redistribution

[RainDog]

http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2010/09/poll-wealth-distribution-similar-sweden/

Americans generally underestimate the degree of income inequality in the United States, and if given a choice, would distribute wealth in a similar way to the social democracies of Scandinavia, a new study finds.

For decades, polls have shown that a plurality of Americans -- around 40 percent -- consider themselves conservative, while only around 20 percent self-identify as liberals. But a new study from two noted economists casts doubt on what values lie beneath those political labels.

According to research (PDF at link) carried out by Michael I. Norton of Harvard Business School and Dan Ariely of Duke University, and flagged by Paul Kedrosky at the Infectious Greed blog, 92 percent of Americans would choose to live in a society with far less income disparity than the US, choosing Sweden's model over that of the US.

What's more, the study's authors say that this applies to people of all income levels and all political leanings: The poor and the rich, Democrats and Republicans are all equally likely to choose the Swedish model.

In other words, if Americans don't see a label meant to scare them, the majority want social democracy in this nation.

70% of Americans want universal health care.

70% of Americans want legal medical marijuana.

Yet what do you hear and read about in the American media? The Dick Armey teabagger pov. The Koch brother DLC pov. The tears of that clown, Glenn Beck. You read lies from the DEA. You hear the Republicans want to continue cutting taxes for the rich (along with some of their blue dog buddies... you know who you are, you scum.)

If I were a teacher and I was grading American politicians and media they would get an F.

They continually fail the American people. I, for one, have HAD IT.

Democrats have the majority. We have the executive branch. Americans want good government that represents the will of the people, not this forced wage slavery that is the Reagan legacy.

[Peace Patriot]

1. I'm bookmarking this for the next shallow thinker who implies that...

...the American people are stupid sheep.

I'm tired of repeating that NEARLY SIXTY PERCENT of the American people opposed the Iraq War (Feb. '03, all polls). Overwhelming disapproval. Yet we got that bloody horror ANYWAY.

We need to look to the mechanisms by which the will of the American people is being thwarted. One of them--in my opinion, the most important one--is the fast-tracking of electronic voting systems--via a $3.9 billion e-voting boondoggle, in the SAME MONTH as the Iraq War resolution (Oct. '02)--run on 'TRADE SECRET,' PROPRIETARY programming code, with virtually no audit/recount controls. This system in now 80% owned and controlled by ONE, private, far-rightwing connected corporation, ES&S (which just bought out Diebold).

THAT is how it is being done. The public has lost its right to SEE the votes being tabulated. And we need to get it back. Step one, toward "New Deal II." Restore PUBLIC vote counting!

[RainDog]

4. I totally agree - we need transparent elections with paper ballots

it's not impossible to do - the system in place now is too corrupt - as we've seen too many times.

[BolivarianHero]

42. with the right message and the right amount of guts, progressives can win..

Christ, White supremacists used to vote for Ralph Yarborough because he helped poor Southern Whites more than the bigoted segregationists ever did.

[Scuba]

53. ++++++1,000

[Enthusiast]

55. Okay, this is a good post.

The voting machines were a calculated means to hijack our democracy. I will not believe anything else.

[Peace Patriot]

2. This thread deserves a thousand recommendations! Thank you, Raindog, for posting this! nt

[Starry Messenger]

3. k & r

If we keep going on, we're going to be far past any chance the Swedish model saving our bacon.

[Lydia Leftcoast]

5. The right-wing media have demonized ANYTHING the Dems do as "far left" or "too liberal"

for so long, and the Dems have responded by going more conservative, so much so that many Americans don't even KNOW that things like single-payer health care or progressive taxation are left-of-center ideas.

[RainDog]

10. and Boehner says the Republicans want tax cuts for the rich and cuts in social services for the poor

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=389&topic_id=9198720&mesg_id=9198720

we are not presented with choices that represent the ways in which we want to practice our economic and political lives.

[sam sarrha]

72. GOP: wealth is proof of gods Favor of a man, so it's a Sin to Tax a rich man and the Poor are being

are being punished by god so it is a SIN to help them..

don't ever forget this.. it explains it all.

[RainDog]

77. which is, of course, a total perversion of the message of Jesus

but it's no surprise to find conservatives are hypocrites and perverts. it could almost be a definition of the term in the U.S.

[sam sarrha]

84. funny you should mention that.. here is link where that came from, also Palins religious association

http://doggo.tripod.com/doggchrisdomin.html

"snip...Leo Strauss was born in 1899 and died in 1973. ... He is most famous for resuscitating Machiavelli and introducing his principles as the guiding philosophy of the Noe-conservative movement. ... More than any other man, Strauss breathed upon conservatism, inspiring it to rise from its atrophied condition and its natural dislike of change and to embrace an unbounded new political ideology that rides on the back of a revolutionary steed, hailing even radical change; hence the name Neo-Conservatives.

Significantly, Dominionism is a form of Social Darwinism.<48> It inherently includes the religious belief that wealth-power is a sign of God’s election. That is, out of the masses of people and the multitude of nations, wealth, in and of itself, is thought to indicate God’s approval on men and nations whereas poverty and sickness reflect God’s disapproval.

(It was not until I read this article that I realized that this is a fundamental tenet of Dominionists.

Worldly wealth and power are signs of God's favor -- to attempt to limit or decrease one's wealth and power is to disrespect God.

On the contrary, God's elect on Earth are called upon to increase their wealth and power.

It is not sufficient for a man to be a millionaire, or for a country to have sovereignty within its borders -- a man must strive to increase his wealth as much as possible, and a Dominionist government's behavior toward its neighbors must be "invade their countries, kill their leaders and convert them to Christianity".

Furthermore, any attempt to decrease a person's or a country's wealth and power -- to take from the rich to give to the poor, to reduce military spending and power -- is a direct attack on God.)

If “Secular Humanists are the greatest threat to Christianity the world has ever known,” as theologian Francis Schaeffer claimed, then who are the Humanists? According to Dominionists, humanists are the folks who allow or encourage licentious behavior in America. They are the undisciplined revelers.

Put all the enemies of the Dominionists together, boil them down to liquid and bake them into the one single most highly derided and contaminated individual known to man, and you will have before you an image of the quintessential “liberal” -- one of those folks who wants to give liberally to the poor and needy -- who desires the welfare and happiness of all Americans -- who insists on safety regulations for your protection and who desires the preservation of your values -- those damnable people are the folks that must be reduced to powerlessness -- or worse: extinction.

What would a “reconstructed” America look like under the Dominionists? K.L. Gentry, a Dominionist himself, suggests the following “elements of a theonomic approach to civic order,” which I strongly suggest should be compared to the Texas GOP platform of 2002, which reveals that we are not just talking about imaginary ideas but some things are already proposed on Republican agendas.<60> Dominionism’s concept of government according to Gentry is as follows:
“1. It obligates government to maintain just monetary policies ... fiat money, fractional reserve banking, and deficit spending.

“2. It provides a moral basis for elective government officials. ...

“3. It forbids undue, abusive taxation of the rich. ...

“4. It calls for the abolishing of the prison system and establishing a system of just restitution. *...

“5. A theonomic approach also forbids the release, pardoning, and paroling of murderers by requiring their execution. ...

“6. It forbids industrial pollution that destroys the value of property. ...

“7. It punishes malicious, frivolous malpractice suits. ...

“8. It forbids abortion rights. ... Abortion is not only a sin, but a crime, and, indeed, a capital crime.”<61>
. . .
* Gary North describes the ‘just restitution’ system of the bible, which happens to reinstitute slavery,
like this:
“At the other end of the curve, the poor man who steals is eventually caught and sold into bondage under a successful person. His victim receives payment; he receives training; his buyer receives a stream of labor services. If the servant is successful and buys his way out of bondage, he re-enters society as a disciplined man, and presumably a self-disciplined man. He begins to accumulate wealth.” ...snip"


all the White House Cabinet Members since Reagan have been dominated by people who studied under Leo Strauss at the University of Chicago. this is the Credo of the NeoCons. our future if the GOP wins a majority in any house ever again.

[Beartracks]

118. This reminds me of when right-wing talking heads say...

... that allowing taxes to return to higher levels on the rich is "punishing success."

Rush Limbaugh is especially guilty of this one. Wealth = success. Clearly, if you are not rich, you are not a successful human.

---------------------------

[Beartracks]

119. You should make this its own thread. n/t

[sam sarrha]

182. i have... no one cares

[rucky]

103. Camel, meet needle. n/t

[COLGATE4]

222. The worst part is that it isn't just the GOP preaching this - it's

the Calvinist Doctrine, in which a majority of American Protestants believe. You can't make much headway in promoting social safety nets or assistance for those less fortunate with persons who believe that the less fortunate are that way because God pre-ordained it.

[RaleighNCDUer]

44. Until the 'left' label is attached to them, that is.

And 'left' = 'bad'.

Remove the labels, and people like them. Add the label to the exact same idea, exact same wording, and they stop listening at 'left' and reject it.

[demosincebirth]

6. Then why in the hell are so many against HCR? Stupid, is my only answer.

[RaleighNCDUer]

45. Because they are told it is 'leftist' and not told what it is.

If they were told what it really is they'd understand what a half-assed sellout compromise this HCR bill actually is comparted to what we really need.

[treestar]

102. Why don't they figure it out themselves instead of waiting to "be told?"

Who are these "tellers" who have the power to control the voters?

[demosincebirth]

136. I know what we really need, but we get what we can, regardless, and HCR

is a lot better than what we had before...which was nothing for the unemployed and the uninsured. I still say they are stupid or delusional, because they believe crap others tell them which is against their own best interest.

[Beartracks]

206. Yeah, that's the most likely explanation.

Confuzzled by MSM, bread-and-circuses, and sincere-sounding "good" people who make up shit about the "bad" people. It's almost like a willfull stupidity, a comfortable ignorance, a disbelief in the notion that so many people and so much of "the system" could lie or be wrong about so much stuff.

:eyes:

[tnlurker]

7. K&R

[Odin2005]

8. OMG, why do 92% of Americans hate America!?!

:sarcasm:

[RainDog]

9. Dan Ariely, one of the researchers, wrote Predictably Irrational

his web site is here: http://danariely.com/

[Dappleganger]

11. I would just love to see more than 80% of the people vote.

Voter turnout is extremely high in Sweden and it is taken quite seriously. I would love to see it taken more seriously here (at least get above 75% of the electorate).

[RainDog]

12. in many European nations people are required to vote

they have higher voter turn out because they require citizens to cast a vote for their leaders. democracy requires citizen participation.

[defendandprotect]

32. Really think that's a good idea --

GOP works to keep voting population down!!

[inna]

36. required how? please elaborate, i do not think that is the case.

[RainDog]

41. if someone habitually does not vote, they may be levied a fine

most western European nations do not generally enforce the law in this way but they may. It's called compulsory voting.

[Larry Ogg]

128. If Democracy should require people to vote, then it should also require them to be informed. n/t

[AlbertCat]

133. people are required to vote

Do they get election day off?

If the US did that, I bet twice as many people would vote. The easier they make it to vote, the more people will vote.

[awoke_in_2003]

142. election day is a holiday...

in most civilized countries.

[Commie Pinko Dirtbag]

145. Actually, they do NOT "require citizens to cast a vote for their leaders".

They require you to show up at the polling booth. Once there, you're free to nullify your vote if you don't like anybody.

[RainDog]

13. here's a link to an article by one of the other researchers, Michael Norton

http://www.nytimes.com/projects/magazine/ideas/2009/#c-2

From the New York Times Magazine 9th Annual Year in Ideas

[Kajsa]

14. K&R!

Thanks for posting this, RainDog!

[kenny blankenship]

15. Well they will just have to move to Sweden, because in this country we have a little thing

called democracy, which means that the rich man rules.

[RainDog]

16. lol n/t

[defendandprotect]

31. No -- it's capitalism which means the rich man rules ....

Capitalism is a system intended to move the wealth and natural resources of a nation

from the many to the few --

Unregulated capitalism is merely organized crime -- !!


:)

[txlibdem]

58. +1

Correct on all counts.

We need to kill Capitalism before it kills us all.

[FredStembottom]

98. Regulated Capitalism works just fine, thanks.

It's what America had post-FDR and gave us our best years.

[txlibdem]

115. FDR was a godsend, yes

But in retrospect all he gave us was time; a band-aid on our hemorrhaging system. As soon as Capitalism had been stabilized the Capitalistas began to undermine and etch away at the gains workers made during the 1930s. The concentration of wealth in the hands of the top 1% shows they have now succeeded. They've been blatantly working on their evil agenda since the 1950s, probably even before. FDR saved Capitalism and the working class at the same time. We could have done without the former, IMO.

And the reason that "post-FDR" were our best years was because all the factories and infrastructure across Europe, Northern Africa, and Asia had been destroyed. America had the only industry and infrastructure left standing and our workers were needed to provide products for the world but also to provide the tools and machines to rebuild on 3 separate continents. That gave us our prosperity, not "Regulated Capitalism." Had America been a Soviet-style command economy it would still have been our finest decades.

Post-FDR, Regulated Capitalism has been a ferocious, blood-thirsty grizzly bear chained to the floor at the other side of the room from you. It lunges at you again and again but the chain keeps his claws from reaching you, merely by inches. The Corporatistas set out to lengthen the chain and loosen the bolts, one by one. Then in 2008 they finally succeeded and the grizzly broke free and started tearing everyone to shreds. Whoops. Another failure of the Capitalist system. Just like every other destructive failure of the Capitalist system we've had before and since 1929.

Had we killed the grizzly when we had the chance there would have been no destruction in 2008 nor any other year. Kill the Capitalism Grizzly before he kills us all.

[FredStembottom]

121. I want capitalism's ability to motivate.

I see it like a car engine.
Capitalism is all that explosive force that a match applied to gasoline produces.
Regulation is the engine block, air intakes and exhausts, cooling system etc. that turns a worthless bon-fire into something astoundingly practical and useable.

I have to run - will check in again here later.

[txlibdem]

139. Sorry. Thought I'd replied to this already but now my post is gone... "old timers???"

I agree with your simile that Capitalism is like a car engine. Or, more specifically, an internal combustion engine.

1. The gasoline explodes due to the spark from the spark plug. Were it not contained inside the cylinder it would be a destructive force. An uncontrolled explosion that may kill someone or cause damage in some other way, or be simply useless as you point out (unregulated capitalism leads to economic collapse every time, without fail, the stock market is now exactly where it was 10 years ago -stagnation, no progress-, and it always needs huge infusions of someone else's cash to get started doing anything).

2. Even contained, the flow of gasoline must be regulated properly. There must be very carefully designed fuel regulation to make sure that the mixture is not too rich and therefore wasteful nor too lean so that it may stall (interest rates, the fed, stimulus funds, pork barrel projects or lack thereof, paid off politicians, etc).

3. Yet, even with careful regulation the engine puts out deadly pollution as part and parcel of its operation. If it's running, there are poison gases being put out at all times. The two cannot be separated. (actual pollution, wasteful duplication of effort -3 cell phone companies, 3 separate incompatible networks, none work well in all places of the country- and the seeking of profit over humanity at all times no matter who dies or has to go bankrupt -health care, etc.-).

4. It required constant maintenance; oil changes and regular stops at the gas station (recessions and depressions), air filter changes and tune-ups (constant tinkering with this regulation or that lest 1929 and 2008 happen again), regular replacement of used up parts for brand new ones (outsourcing, throw-away experienced workers replaced with inexperienced -read: "compliant"- new ones).

Now compare that with Socialism, which is like an electric motor; what the Nissan Leaf or Ford Focus EV will use.

1. There is still a need for careful design of the system lest someone get a shock and that it function well for the whole vehicle, not causing damage to any other parts.

2. But even when it is running at its most INEFFICIENT it is still many times better than the internal combustion engine. And when it is running at pretty good efficiency there is very little waste, zero pollution coming from the vehicle, superior torque even from a full stop, and no gawd awful noisy racket from the engine announcing how "sporty" it sounds or how "rugged".

You may ask, but what gives the electric motor any motivation to work at all if it has no need of money to go to the gas station all the time? That is a function of the design. In an electric vehicle the motivation comes from the motor controller which tells the motor if it has to do anything at all and if so how much and how fast. A human example of this function would be a supervisor or superior officer in the military. An electric motor that no longer performs its function (or doesn't do it well enough to make the car go fast enough) is replaced, perhaps put to use elsewhere that is not so demanding but there will still be a good and important job for that motor to do.

[FredStembottom]

197. You know... we may be seeing eye-to-eye

...but our standard definitions may be different. So I'll step back and explain the mind-model I use for this kind of thing..

I generally consider Free Market capitalism to be at one end of the spectrum and complete government planning and control at the other.

I generally use the engine metaphor to demonstrate what I consider to be the most important aspect of that spectrum - and what is never considered important by...well, anybody anywhere that I can find.

That has to do with the fact that an engine (internal combustion, anyways) can't run and do it's 'magic" until a certain ratio of gasoline to air is reached inside the cylinders. It's 14.7 to 1 fuel to air. This can vary a little. But the point is, that that magic ratio is not 100 to 0. And it's not 0 to 100. it's not even 50/50. Or 25/75. It's the very unsatisfying (to human intuition) 14.7 to 1. But at that weird, "disappointing" ratio, the engine goes nuts! An almost ridiculous spike in it's efficiency and ability to do occurs. Work that runs cars and trains and factories and on and on.

Too much air and the engine stalls. Too much fuel and the engine stalls - or even becomes a worthless bon-fire.

To me, we have spent the last 30 years in the "if 14.7 to 1 fuel to air is good, then 100 to 0 must be freakin' awesome!!!!" era. And while that has irresistable, rock and roll appeal (apparently) to a small powerful elite..... the engine has stalled on it.

If Private capital can be said to be the fuel and govt. regulation the air, then there is likely some also mysterious balancing point in which our Economic "engine" just takes off in that incredible spike of work-doing energy. A balancing point that just doesn't inspire rallies or speeches. Too dull, Too un-awesome.

I want to slide the "mixture" ratio lever along that spectrum to whatever point fires up the engine.
I expect it to be just as unsatisfying to the human mind as 14.7 to 1 is. I expect it will be ideologically messy and in need of daily tending.

And I can't help but feel we were nearest to that ideal point after FDR.

(edited for actual fuel ratio)

[txlibdem]

210. We cannot relate FDR's time to today without about a million caveats

The reason FDR was successful in getting all the progressive changes made was because there was a very large -and growing- Socialist movement in the US at that time. He knew that he had to "save" Capitalism lest the influence of the Socialists continue to grow.

Why is Pres. Obama not enacting FDR-like policies? Why are the Capitalistas being so antagonistic and dragging their feet on helping the economy by sitting on a pile of cash totaling $1.8 Trillion (more than enough to hire 20 million workers making $50,000 a year)? The main difference between now and then is the lack of a popular Socialist movement in this country. In other words, they don't have to "save" Capitalism because there is no competition at all. There is no "Option B."

I do agree that we are not aligned on our definitions at all. Where you see Free Market Capitalism as polar opposite to USSR-like central planning and control I see those as two sides of the same coin. They are both forms of Capitalism, only differing in who is the biggest Capitalist. Where I see the opposite of those is outlawing money entirely, tasking the government with providing all basic necessities such as a safe and clean environment, clean water, food, housing, education, and communications. You may be surprised that I include communications in that list but no true Democracy can survive for long without free and uncorrupted access to information and the ability to send and receive communications from anywhere to anywhere (this to act as a checks-and-balances force to ensure government remains focused on improving the lives of the people and not on its own privileges and power). This leaves the citizenry free to focus on bettering the human condition, inventing new ideas, pursuing advances in science and technology, the arts, etc. We have all the knowledge today to forge such a society. All it takes is will and determination (and breaking through the entrenched special interests who seek to maintain the status quo).

I appreciate your fleshing out the internal combustion engine example. It underscores the perilous situation we are in today. Whenever the administration or the congress tries to inch us closer to 14.7 their opponents in government, industry, and the media either pushes or pulls with all their might so we are in the end farther from optimum than we were before. When the administration capitulates and "compromises" with the forces of destruction allied against us all they are helping to put up more roadblocks to us ever getting to that magic ratio you describe.

You also didn't seem to notice that even once we get to that balance the very existence of the system is destructive to the planet and all humans that do or will ever live on it. A perfectly balanced and tuned suicide machine is still, after all is said and done, a suicide machine.

[FredStembottom]

214. Actually, I just didn't get to it.

In my engine example, there are poisonous gases emitted from even the most finely tuned engine, to be sure.
That's where the catalytic converter comes into play.
Those poisonous gases are now gone.
I expect a well-run economy to need all kinds of "remedies" to various side-effects, as well.

And yes, an internal combustion engine uses a fossil fuel. But diesels were invented to use peanut oil originally.
And there is the carbon dioxide...... but that really isn't a poison. It's what plants require. The buildup of it in our atmosphere is quite threatening but that seems to me to be a weird quirk of our atmosphere that I can't think of a corollary for in economics.

[txlibdem]

221. Catalytic converter makes all poisonous gases "gone" ???

I debated whether I should let that slide but it serves too well to make my point so, alas, I cannot. Let me propose a hypothetical experiment to you (please do NOT do this, ever). Let's put that perfectly balanced, perfectly tuned internal combustion engine inside a typical home's garage and we'll both sit there in lawn chairs with all the doors and windows closed and wait. Let's burn peanut oil in it if you wish, or diesel, or unleaded gasoline, or E85 or whatever. This engine has all the appropriate high tech pollution control equipment including catalytic converters (and in the case of diesel engine, urea injector, etc.). Cutting to the chase, after less than an hour you and I will be dead, my friend. The explanation is that there is nothing one can do to or add to an internal combustion engine that will make it non-deadly in the above hypothetical experiment. It will always be deadly in the end. Sure, we can live with it for a while and maybe the gases will make us light headed or euphoric so we might even enjoy our impending demise.

This is Capitalism in a nutshell. We have been in the euphoria stage for quite a while now. Guess what comes next?

Oh, and your last paragraph sounded like something a climate-denier would write but I'll help you out with an economic analogy anyway. The buildup of CO2 in our atmosphere is threatening indeed but not yet fatal because of the size of the vessel only. Return to our garage example and imagine, instead of a one car garage, a 3 car garage or a 5 car garage. The volume of the garage is much larger now so as we sit in our lawn chairs are we now completely safe from death? NO. It will merely take a longer time for the gas to build up to a lethal level. Should we imagine our lawn chairs are now in an airplane hangar? Are we now forever safe from death?

Now to tie in to economics, we are in the airplane hangar with the engine running but we aren't alone. There are 1000 other vehicles in there with us and as time goes by more and more of them start their engines. Now a few people in the hangar with us start to think that the air inside the hangar is in limited supply. They then deduce that if they took a huge balloon and filled it with air they would have plenty for themselves. They give no thought to the fact that this reduces the amount of air available to the rest of us. Some others see them as they pump more and more air into their balloons and decide that they want to have more air for themselves as well. So they, too, get a huge balloon and begin to pump it full of air. More and more people, thinking only of themselves, start pumping the air into their own personal balloons. One can realistically imagine that the rest of us can withstand one selfish air hoarder, unless that greedy person's balloon is very, very huge. But can there be no limit? We begin to notice that these few people have kept filling their balloons and even made larger balloons so they can take more of the air for themselves as well even while they continue to use up (breathe) the air that the rest of us depend upon. We begin to wonder if there is a limit to how many of these greedy people we can tolerate, or how huge a balloon can any one person really truly need. It seems that these few people are taking away something that belongs to all of us, keeping it all to themselves, never sharing any of what they have, yet keep breathing up our air along with us. Some of us extrapolate into the future and see that one day all the air will be either used up or filled with the poison gases from all those engines - we will die. But those greedy few will have huge caches of air for their own personal use that they have no intention of sharing.

These are the Capitalists. They take something that belongs to all of us, and make it their own. They continually gather more and more and more while the rest of us are left to fight for the scraps. The amazing thing is that we seem to be so happy to do it, we have been brainwashed into believing that this is the natural order of things. After all, if God had not wanted these few people to be above the rest of us then He would not have made it so. Right? Alternatively, a cold interpretation of "survival of the fittest" says that the rich must be somehow "fitter" to survive than the rest of us. After all, the strongest gorilla gets to mate with the females. The most tenacious walrus defeats all his foes and sends them bleeding into the shadows or back into the sea.

But we are Humans, not animals. We are supposed to be more evolved, more intelligent than the animals. Right? So, what kind of human being would take the air that we all need to survive and keep it to themselves. Can't they see the worry, the suffering, the pain in the other denizens of that airplane hangar? Does anyone honestly think that they do not know the air is limited, that their hoarding of it will unquestionably cause suffering or even death for others? What kind of person could do these things when we all know that they are insightful and intelligent enough to see these things, to know these facts. Yet it is as if they do not care.

What type of person causes pain and suffering to another and yet does not care? The rest of us have something called "empathy" that keeps such selfish, amoral behavior in check. We can understand the pain of another, we can relate, we feel bad when we see them in pain, when we see them suffering, when we see them dying. What type of person lacks that ability? The psychological term for this type of person is psychopath and is defined as "a personality disorder characterized by an abnormal lack of empathy combined with strongly amoral conduct but masked by an ability to appear outwardly normal." ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Psychopath ). Thus we get to the root of the disorder called Capitalism, the disorder afflicting all the wealthy and uber-wealthy of the world: they are psychopaths.

Capitalism is a system which rewards most the persons who are the most psychopathic, those that can hoard the most, steal the most from the rest of us, take what belongs to everyone and make it their own, and yet seem perfectly happy to do it. And these psychopaths never seem abnormal to the rest of us, they say so many things that make what they do sound like the right thing, they act like they are perfectly normal. But an insightful analysis of their behavior reveals the painful truth: the most successful Capitalists are the most disturbed, the most psychopathic among us.

Why should we worship an economic system that so highly values, puts on a pedestal the cruelest, meanest, most selfish, most psychopathic?

[FredStembottom]

223. Thanks, txlibdem! I am enjoying this discussion very much!

And thanks for your patience. I am a truck driver and work away from computers most of the day so it's nice of you to wait for me to respond.

As far as the car/garage thing goes: I should explain... I am usually never engaged in absolutes. By saying the gases are "gone" thanks to the catalytic converter, I simply mean "reduced to negligible amounts". After all, it's the sealing up of the garage that defeated the effect of the c-converter. In climate science, there is a number - they have actually established a number now - where the release of carbon dioxide can be balanced by natural carbon sinks like plant usage, algae absorption and so on. It's the fact that we exceeded the limits of this cycle that threatens us. Like sealing up the garage when ventilation is warranted.
I am for returning to a lower level of emissions. To becoming in-balance again, if possible. Whatever that number turns out to be. No matter how severe. Nothing more. Striving for absolutes is what causes sooooo much trouble in this world.

And you are right about capitalists. I encourage you to make your point above again and again to whoever will listen. I try to do so myself.

Because, yes!, the wildly successful capitalist is a person with a type of deformed personality that allows them to forsake family, friends, flora and fauna in the obsessive drive to wealth. Wealth is among other things, an intoxicant. Primarily an intoxicant. in my view. And the wealthy are often akin to addicts, often displaying many of the same anti-social behaviors.*

Ronald Reagan liked to say, as a statement of his over-riding principles, that, above all else, he wanted America to remain "a place where a man can get rich". Holy crap, Ron! That's an eighth-grade boys' dream for America.

How about forever remaining a "place where a guy can get laid"?

...or a "place where you can always get drunk"?

But knowing that this type of personality exists (and I believe in concentrated form in America due to the type of sociopath that so often bailed out to America in the early years), let's us adjust taxation and regulation to prevent the worst of the excesses of the un-hinged mind and give folks like me who just want a nice, quiet life the chance to achieve some level of financial stability without having to be equally psychotic to do it.

I wouldn't dream of trying to actually change the psychological profile of anyone. I just want the refs to actually call fouls in the Big Game.

I'm tired of this American bowling tournament where some are allowed to just walk down the lanes and kick the pins over. I want a real tournament - with all the rules and handicapping that allows the little guy to compete with anyone and win a nice trophy.

*Like your air-hoarders above. And I would argue that that is solved by no air-hoarding laws and/or a huge tax on it that let's the un-balanced mind have their freakin' balloons but makes it much more difficult to fill.

[txlibdem]

225. I love the bowling metaphor! So true. So true.

You and I have to stay behind the line but the top 3% gets to walk right up to the pins and just kick them over. And they get 4 tries to do it, instead of the usual 2. Love it!

I posted in other threads about Casino America, where the middle class are encouraged to step up to the roulette wheel and put their money down on the table. Oh, by the way, the house ALWAYS wins. Sounds like we both agree that the game is rigged!

Please hold onto your faith in Capitalism for as long as you can. You don't want to live in my world, believe me, because I just don't "believe" any more. I have no faith that the ref will suddenly start stepping in after 30 years of wearing blinders. And every member of the opposing team are carrying automatic weapons and switchblade knives anyway so is there really any chance that it will ever again be a "fair" game?

Remember: you are following the rules of the game but your opponents are psychopaths and thieves who sneer at anyone who doesn't spit at the word "rules."

PS, my brother used to be a truck driver so I know your situation well. I'm sure you do not appreciate the Republicans pushing to allow Mexican truck drivers to carry cargo to any destination in the US. I find it especially troubling that Mexican trucking companies have basically no safety rules, no inspections, no weight limits.

[FredStembottom]

226. I do, indeed, still believe in capitalism.

And wouldn't want to do without it. I am the son, grandson and great grandson of small business owners and that has influenced me no doubt.
However, you and I have common ground it seems. We both want the social Darwinism to be stopped. We want it replaced with somethingthat provides the greatest good for the greatest number of people.

That's what counts.

All the best to you.

[RainDog]

152. I think democracy is strong when it has a system of checks and balances

this works in the economic sector as well.

unions, capitalists and the government can provide checks on the power of each. the govt. can provide protections for workers and regulations on financial instruments for the welfare of the nation - so that capital does not hurt this nation by gambling away our nation's greatness on junk bonds and financial instruments.

unions provide for the welfare of workers - they have a long and honorable history of ridding this nation of child labor, of 7 day work weeks, of dying w/o a pension.

capital can finance new endeavors. they should be rewarded for taking chances that result in improvments - but they should not be allowed to exploit those who make those rewards possible.

[txlibdem]

209. Capital has control and all the rewards of our hard work because they have made it so

While more than one-third of employed people belonged to unions in 1945, union membership fell to 24.1 percent of the U.S. work force in 1979 and to 13.9 percent in 1998."

http://economics.about.com/od/laborinamerica/a/union_decline.htm

Unions ability to protect workers from abusive management practices has been nearly completely lost.

Capital can finance this or that. So can governments. The choice lies in who benefits most from that investment.

Where a Capitalist provides investment they architect the outcome to benefit themselves and themselves only. Where governments provide financing there is a much better chance that everyone will benefit.

Capitalists should be rewarded for taking chances? Why is that, exactly? They should be jailed where they exploit. They should be banned where they abuse. They should be pushed out where they cause inefficiency, waste, pollution, or injustice.

Capitalism is designed from the ground up to exploit the workers and consumers. Where do you think "profits" come from? By charging too much for the service or product they provide. Or from underpaying workers for their efforts.

It's nice to dream that Capitalism is a kindly old grandfather who takes you fishing and teaches you how to bait the hook with just the right stuff to catch a big fish. In reality, Capitalism is the serial killer lurking in the shadows waiting for you to become unaware or innocent enough for them to strike.

[FredStembottom]

224. Hi, I'm over here now!

"It's nice to dream that Capitalism is a kindly old grandfather who takes you fishing and teaches you how to bait the hook with just the right stuff to catch a big fish. In reality, (Unfettered)Capitalism is the serial killer lurking in the shadows waiting for you to become unaware or innocent enough for them to strike."

I altered your statement to reflect what I believe is truer.

The ability to profit a few bucks is a wonderful incentive to useful work that seems to appeal to nearly every human. But the rules must be there so that a reasonable, (non-sociopathic) amount of work and/or innovation yields a reasonable amount of bucks.

We've become un-regulated to the point where only the nearly psychotic can succeed at all - and receive far too much when they do. While the little, quiet, family-loving guy works harder and harder for fewer and fewer bucks.

I'm just looking for reasonableness.

[Scruffy1]

70. Ours is GM and on steroids

[defendandprotect]

78. ... and just a PS on my comment ... capitalism is anti-democracy ....

despite that we are taught in our schools that capitalism and democracy

are synonymous, they are opposites!

[RainDog]

91. Sweden is a mix of capitalism and socialism

The study also indicated that Americans do not support total non-capitalist systems.

It seems to me, looking at the last 60 years of world history, social democracies have come out stronger than either communist or capitalist systems.

The United States of Europe is a good book to read about the way northern Europe has positioned itself to be an economic power based upon cooperative models as well as competitive ones.

In addition, those nations made energy decisions based upon the good of the nation, not petrol companies. They don't have pols lying about global warming constantly spewing from the tv screens. They are already implementing alternative energy plans. They have educated populations - far greater knowledge of issues than Americans across the board. They have strong support for things like bike transport, public transport, affordable and sustainable living practices...

because they don't have to deal with Beckerheads who wouldn't know their economic interests if they bit them on the ass.

[FredStembottom]

99. Thanks, RD!

I just want what works - and it appears to be a messy mix that succeeds.
I don't want any more ideology - no more 100% anything.

[defendandprotect]

141. Think that's pretty much what the New Deal was ....

however, elites have been determined to stop it -- and then to knock it out --

and they did succeed!

And I'm sure that France and any other nation that practices some form of controlled

or regulated capitalism is also on the list for action!



PS: Except that, of course, FDR never got to the national health care system which

was part of the New Deal -- and Truman didn't get it thru --

so -- we've always been seriously lacking in that regard.

[RufusTFirefly]

183. Capitalism and democracy aren't opposites. They're like apples and oranges

Capitalism is an economic system. Democracy is a political system.

What's dangerous is when capitalism is treated as a political system. Arguments in favor of certain political leaders because of their business experience make me ill. These people don't have day-to-day experience with democracy. They can't be fired by the rank and file the way that elected leaders can later be rejected by the citizens who originally elected them. Capitalism is OK as an economic system. But it should never be mistaken for a political system. Politically, capitalism resembles fascism.

And that, I fear, is what we are seeing.

[defendandprotect]

196. Capitalism is anti-democracy . . . . if you want democracy you need an economic

system which supports economic democracy -- capitalism doesn't!

Capitalism is NOT "OK" as an economic system --

Capialism is a ridiculous "King-of-the-Hill System" --

intended to move the wealth and natural resources of nations from the many to the few.


We had regulated capitalism and elites have now overturned it again -- but they've had to do

that by totally buying government and our elected officials and candidates!

Not to mention having to buy all of our press and publishing houses -- corporatism depends

upon controlling everything to prevent any truth counter to its myth from getting to the public.




Capitalism is OK as an economic system. But it should never be mistaken for a political system. Politically, capitalism resembles fascism. And that, I fear, is what we are seeing.

You recognize corporatism as "fascism" and you're still saying it's "OK" as an economic system!!???

Wow -- !!

[RufusTFirefly]

201. "OK" is hardly a ringing endorsement

You completely skipped over the point of my message, which is that capitalism is an economic system, not a political one.

Please don't turn my "OK" into some sort of hosanna. I'm no huge fan of capitalism. That said, many successful social democracies with humane and progressive policies still incorporate capitalism into their model. But they have important counterbalances, such as strong unions, a sturdy safety net, government regulations with real teeth, and a free and vibrant press that keep capitalism on a very tight leash. And that's why transforming our system into something that more closely resembles that of some Western European countries would be "OK" with me.

[defendandprotect]

202. Schools have taught capitalism as synonymous with democracy.....

suggesting that a capitalist system supports democracy --

You're complete ignoring that point --

And, again -- that if you want democracy which need economic democracy --

not capitalism/corporatism which is fascism, as you have also acknowledged!

[Larry Ogg]

129. It would be more objective to say that in this country we have a pretend democracy,

because the overwhelming majority of victim citizens suffer from Jingoism and base their votes on lies and propaganda fed them by the predator class.

[awoke_in_2003]

143. "we have a pretend democracy"

Yep, it is a Potemkin Village. If the facade ever slips, even just a little bit, I wonder what this countries people will do? Hell, who am I kidding, the majority will just head to Mickey D's and get a Double Quarter Pounder with Cheese meal, biggie sized, then sit their asses on the couch and watch TV.

[Larry Ogg]

167. Unfortunately, for nearly a century or more,

government, to a lessor and greater degree respectively, has had a prohibition on truth... and I think John Kennedy threatened the trend, and since then the predator class via their M$M has pretty much dictated to the electorate as to whom they will and will not vote for, of course elections need to be close enough to steal if necessary, and the illusion of two parties must be maintained, and hopefully the majority wont have a clue until long after "it can't happen here" is so flagrantly obvious that even the dumbest of sheep will figure it out. But I can imagine that being hung up by the ankles wont be enough to convince some of those Mickey D sports fans who think democracy is to live and breath stupid.

[defendandprotect]

203. +1000% ---

I'd question every election back to Nixon/Humphrey -- another squeaker --

the computers -- both the large computers used by MSM and the voting computers

began coming in during the mid-late-1960's -- just about time America was passing

the Voting Rights Act!

Until 1965, MSM could only report actual vote tallies -- they could get a little

group together to discuss likelihoods of this or that happening, but that's all.

The computers gave them new powers to PREDICT and CALL elections -- WINNERS and

LOSERS - ELECTORAL COLLEGE VOTES -- to CALL states --

What we saw in 2000 was merely a reversal of those new powers.


As these computers began to come in during the 1960's, they were investigated in

Florida by two journalists -- those journalists reported their findings to

the DNC at the Watergate, pre-Nixon's break-in. They also wrote a book which was

taken off the shelves and suppressed.

The family of the journalists keeps a website up -- the book is available for $3

bucks here and there -- and some libraries have it.


VOTESCAME -- The Stealing of America
http://www.constitution.org/vote/votescam__.htm


Btw, Thom Hartman says that the Democratic Party has made any discussion of computer

voting steals a taboo subject, saying that if Democrats thought the elections weren't

honest, they wouldn't come out to vote!

[Larry Ogg]

207. thanks for the info

I know that there are groups of people who go over elections results with a fine tooth comb, and their work is extremely valuable. There are also groups of people that study the psychology of politics and the character of those who would be so bold as to commit election fraud, theft and much much worse, the latter is what I find most fascinating. We're dealing with people who act like and may be psychopaths who have acquired massive wealth and political power in one hand, and in the other hand we have their authoritarian followers who support them.

There has been a great deal of research and evidence that tells a very disturbing story, and when you've seen enough of it the deception stands out like a beacon. Unfortunately the government has no higher power to answer too, and sweeping a scandal under the rug is all to common, of course to be successful at sweeping crimes under the rug in broad daylight requires the electorate to not believe their eyes and ears, and to have faith that their leaders have screwed them for their own benefit; this requires an instinctive trust that defies reason, unfortunately humans use instinct more than most believe, and rest assured politicians use that to their advantage...

[defendandprotect]

208. Interesting post ... especially ...

...of course to be successful at sweeping crimes under the rug in broad daylight requires the electorate to not believe their eyes and ears, and to have faith that their leaders have screwed them for their own benefit; this requires an instinctive trust that defies reason, unfortunately humans use instinct more than most believe, and rest assured politicians use that to their advantage...

I think Jim Garrison got it right after the JFK assassination when he described Americans as

"Hamlet's" trying to figure out if they actually know what they think they know --???


Always have been conspiracies -- and always will be --

It's the Royal House, the Palace, the plotting -- Shakespeare over and over again!


Think the JFK assassination has to be more correctly seen as a coup on our "people's" government.



:)

[awoke_in_2003]

205. Yep...

Kennedy was their last big threat- presidents that came after him got the message.

[defendandprotect]

213. The only way the right wing can rise is by politican violence .... and

we've had more than 50 years of it -- out in the open!

"The myth of a free press died with the assassiantion of Pres. John F. Kennedy" --


:)

[provis99]

17. unrec for completely made up figures.

[JanMichael]

18. rec just to negate your unrec.

Oh and the figures aren't made up pal.

[RainDog]

19. did you read the article (the article the Harvard and Duke professors wrote)

the one that is in the journal, Perspectives on Psychological Science.

if you think the figures are made up, please explain your reasoning.

[RainDog]

21. did you read the article yet?

still waiting to hear a reply that is something more than a statement with no facts to back it up...aka a lie.

[RainDog]

24. had a chance to look at the article yet?

if not, let me paraphrase a little bit of it for you.

the authors of the study (who are well-regarded scholars and important public intellectuals whose work is widely accepted) created definitions for wealth so that all respondents were working from the same model.

they showed people pie charts that demonstrated the way in which wealth could be distributed. the model that people chose happened to be the model that best matches Sweden - tho the people in the study were not aware of this.

in fact, one point of the study is that many people in the U.S. are not aware of the income disparity here that is so unlike any other western democracy.

but, no matter what they claimed as their political affiliation, an overwhelming majority favored a more equitable distribution of income.

so, again, if you would like to dispute the study - please produce some actual data to support your baseless claim. If you just want to bald-face lie - I'm calling you on it.

If you want to dispute that 70% of Americans support medicare for all - you can look at the New York Times/CBS News poll from June, 2009 that showed the support was actually more than 70%.

If you want to dispute that 70% of Americans support medical marijuana (and have for over a DECADE), you can go to the original sources for these polls:

72 percent of respondents agreed with the statement, "Adults should be allowed to legally use marijuana for medical purposes if a physician recommends it."
POLL: AARP
DATE: November 2004
Sample Size: 1,706

80 percent of respondents supported allowing adults to "legally use marijuana for medical purposes."
POLL: Time Magazine/CNN Poll
DATE: October 2002
Sample Size: 1,007

70 percent of respondents answered affirmatively to the question, "Should the use of medical marijuana be allowed?"
POLL: Center for Substance Abuse Research
DATE: January 2002
Sample Size: N/A

73 percent of respondents supported allowing doctors "to prescribe marijuana."
POLL: Pew Research Center Poll
DATE: March 2001
Sample Size: 1,513

73 percent of respondents said they "would vote for making marijuana legally available for doctors to prescribe."
POLL: Gallup
DATE: March 1999
Sample size: 1,018

[inna]

37. rec just to make up for your very uncool unrec

[fascisthunter]

73. rec for intentionally pissing on good info

[RainDog]

74. did you read the article yet?

...I didn't think so. hit and run bullshit, I see.

[bvar22]

97. Don't like those numbers?

He are some from a different source:

Here is what the MAJORITY of Americans (Democrats AND Republicans) want from OUR government!

In recent polls (2005!) by the Pew Research Group, the Opinion Research Corporation, the Wall Street Journal, and CBS News, the American majority has made clear how it feels. Look at how the majority feels about some of the issues that you'd think would be gospel to a real Democratic Party:

1. 65 percent (of ALL Americans, Democrats AND Republicans) say the government should guarantee health insurance for everyone -- even if it means raising taxes.

2. 86 percent favor raising the minimum wage (including 79 percent of selfdescribed "social conservatives").

3. 60 percent favor repealing either all of Bush's tax cuts or at least those cuts that went to the rich.

4. 66 percent would reduce the deficit not by cutting domestic spending but by reducing Pentagon spending or raising taxes.

5. 77 percent believe the country should do "whatever it takes" to protect the environment.

6. 87 percent think big oil corporations are gouging consumers, and 80 percent (including 76 percent of Republicans) would support a windfall profits tax on the oil giants if the revenues went for more research on alternative fuels.

7. 69 percent agree that corporate offshoring of jobs is bad for the U.S. economy (78 percent of "disaffected" voters think this), and only 22% believe offshoring is good because "it keeps costs down."

http://alternet.org/story/29788/

8. Over 63% oppose the War on the Iraqi People.

9. 92% of ALL Americans support TRANSPARENT, VERIFIABLE elections!
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=203x446445

The Democratic Party is a BIG TENT, but there is NO ROOM for those
who advance the agenda of THE RICH (Corporate Owners) at the EXPENSE of LABOR and the POOR.

[Forkboy]

191. Your cowardice is coming back to respond is noted.

[McCamy Taylor]

20. Well then they wont get it, because majority rule is "socialism" Fox told me so,

[txlibdem]

61. I would love to argue with you

But everyone with an IQ over 40 knows we can't argue that fact.

[old mark]

22. ...so where are the politicians who are willing to do it? Are they all being paid

so much by the rich that their actual salaries are no longer meaningful to them?
I often read of Rep. Boehner's humble background and how he now spends millions on golf and related persuits...did he save his House paycheck to afford that money?

We are owned and run by the rich, and Obama is different from Boehner only in degree.

mark

[Hannah Bell]

23. too bad sweden's been getting rid of it for years.

[RainDog]

25. are you trying to claim that Sweden does not support its current social programs?

if so, it would be nice to see some information.

The articles that I've read about northern western European nations during this recession emphasize how happy they are that they haven't suffered in this recession in the same way that Americans have - because of the social safety net that is part of their governing ideology.

I can provide quotes from article after article.

no doubt some western European nations have had an upsurge of nationalist candidates in response to the current tensions over immigration - or long-standing feuds over issues like language... but I have never seen support for American-style crony capitalism and the huge disparities in wealth that is the truth of American society today.

so, again, if you want to make such a claim, it would be nice if you could back it up.

[Hannah Bell]

132. i'm claiming sweden's been "reforming" their system for years. toward the neolib.

http://www.britannica.com/bps/additionalcontent/18/35122878/Neoliberal-Reforms-in-Swedish-Primary-Health-Care-For-Whom-and-for-What-Purpose

http://www.wwwords.co.uk/rss/abstract.asp?j=eerj&aid=4063

http://www.lilith-ezine.com/articles/politics/Privatizing-Swedens-Education.html

http://www.oezp.at/pdfs/2003-4-02.pdf


The trend is global. Europe's welfare state is under attack all over. Sweden started moving in this direction in the 80s.

[RainDog]

150. I know there are attacks - but there are counterattacks as well

these attacks are based upon backlash from immigration in these nations.

People from the middle east, for instance, who have settled on the continent in Europe are not as assimilated as people from the middle east in the U.S. There was an article about this in the NYTimes last week.

But these nations do not want to give up their social security safety net - and the "reforms" do not move them anywhere near what the U.S. takes as the only possible outcome - vast inequities.

Sarkozy has also tried to do this in France - but the unions keep people from the worst abuses of the neo-liberals/neo-cons - again, unlike the situation here.

France doesn't want to give up its health care system for instance - ranked the best in the world. GB looked at reforms for its health care system and looked to France - certainly not to the U.S.

I think these claims are exaggerations - yes, there have been some changes in laws but they do not undo the overall system of social democracy and the right in western Europe does not have enough power to govern w/o forming coalitions with moderates and the left - who cannot win by undermining the social safety net.

iow, there is no valid comparison with the U.S. in terms of neo-liberal reforms - we don't even have the most basic health care in place for people here - so nations in w. europe would have a long fall into the abyss to get to where we are.

[Hannah Bell]

181. No, they started before immigration became a big issue. In the Reagan era.

And they have made absolute gains. No exaggeration, if you read the links you'd know that.

[RainDog]

189. I did read the links

Immigration has been an issue for decades across western Europe - because of the guest worker programs of the 1960s. Again, the gains in no way bring any western European nation down to the levels of American neo-liberal Hobbesean nasty and brutish policies for the middle class.

If you read Were You Born on the Wrong Continent it is clear that the social safety net is going strong in western Europe.

I have relatives and friends in nations in western Europe and all of them enjoy a better quality of life than the middle class in the U.S. - the rich probably do better here in terms of scale, but not necessarily quality of life.

[Hannah Bell]

211. 1. we were specificaly talking about sweden. 2. sweden has "reformed" both health care & ed since

the 80s, moving in the neolib direction toward increased privatization.

3. the same trend is underway in the rest of europe.

4. currently western europe has a bigger public sector than the us, but attacks on it are ongoing.

i also have friends & relative in europe, & have lived there. things change. europe isn't an island, & capital is global.

[RainDog]

215. the reason the neoliberals, or democrats, have gotten anywhere is, again, about immigration

if you have relatives there then you surely know this.

here's an editorial that talks about this exact thing. it's really apples and oranges - this whole thing. I'm saying that Europe continues to have a strong social safety net and does not want to give it up - and point to an admission of the same from the neolib there.

you say things have changed. I say yes, but they are no where near the level of income disparity in the U.S. and ALL of this has come about b/c immigrants are not as assimilated in Sweden and other nations (and the pundits back this up.)

So, iow, your statements about Sweden don't accurately reflect the view of the Swedish population in general in regard to the social safety net - the reason the democrats (the Swedish right) has gained any power is because of tension about immigration.

so, I'm sort of done with this. we will agree we disagree about the overall impact and, maybe the causes and solutions.

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/09/28/opinion/28tue3.html

a xenophobic anti-immigrant party that misleadingly calls itself the Sweden Democrats won 20 seats in the 349-seat Parliament. Neither of the two main coalitions secured a clear majority, so this former fringe group is hoping to leverage its power.

Prime Minister Fredrik Reinfeldt plans to stay on as head of a minority center-right government. For now, all of the mainstream parties say they will make no deals with the Sweden Democrats. They should stand firm.

At a time of high unemployment and growing pressure on the traditionally generous welfare state, highly visible immigrant communities — like the 500,000 Muslims who now make up roughly 5 percent of the overall population — make especially tempting scapegoats.

Sweden’s immigrant populations tend to live in ghettoized areas, receive inferior public educations and suffer higher unemployment and arrest rates than the native-born population. These problems have received too little official attention and financing, not too much.

[Hannah Bell]

219. you've got it backwards. it's capital pushing both.

[apocalypsehow]

26. Sweden just elected a far-right government into power. You may want to catch up with current events.

[diane in sf]

27. whose definition of far right? RW pols there are likely still for Swedish social services

[laughingliberal]

125. Exactly! Reagan was 'far right' to a lot of us here. Now, we see some Democrats to his right. nt

[RainDog]

28. LOL. You might want to gain some reading comprehension

whatever Sweden has done has absolutely nothing to do with the study that deals with American values and views of what is the most appropriate economic model for the U.S.

The people who were involved in the study had no idea the model they preferred was the Swedish one.

However, you might also want to learn a bit about European politics. The fight in Europe right now is about immigration. If you think that any western European democracy favors a right wing economic model like the one in the U.S. - you're simply wrong.

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/europe/a-rightwing-resurgence-the-end-of-the-swedish-dream-416085.html

The Social Democrats have held power for all but nine years since 1932, in the process building up a generous and popular benefits system seen as a model across Europe. High taxes have funded massive investment in education, health and research and development, delivering impressive economic growth.

Many of the right's sacred cows have been unceremoniously slaughtered as Mr Reinfeldt seeks to usher in an era of caring conservatism. He knows Swedish voters expect to pay high taxes and regard their excellent welfare system, including its enviable health and child care, with pride.

But he also recognises an undercurrent of discontent. Mr Reinfeldt's deputy, Gunilla Carlsson, says: "Swedes are happy in a homogenous society where you have good chances in life even if you come from a family without much education.

"Swedes like to pay to the welfare system but it really has to be built on the fact that everyone is working. Today, we have the black market and people misusing the system."

Unemployment has emerged as a key issue in the campaign, something of a surprise in a country where economic growth stands officially at 5.5 per cent, inflation is low and the budget deficit is the envy of most European states. Unemployment is, according to the government, a respectable 6 per cent.

So, for approximately 70 years, social democracy has been the pride of this nation - it's deficit and unemployment rates put the U.S. to shame - even the Swedish moderate conservative (that's the name of the coalition) acknowledges people want the social democracy they have - and you're trying to use this as a way to discredit this study?

LOLOLOL.

Are you that uninformed or are you just trying to bullshit people?

[apocalypsehow]

30. Sweden just elected a far-right government into power. You may want to catch up with current events.

[Enthusiast]

57. Go on, spew

those right wing talking points! Thanks, we just don't hear enough of it on the M$M.

[Radical Activist]

160. Repeating an argument doesn't make it stronger.

You got pwned on this one.

[RainDog]

33. so, is that all you've got? some lame misunderstanding of western European politics

that you think is a snappy comeback?

LOL.

have you ever actually been to a western European nation? Ever lived in one? Ever known people from one? Ever had friends there - have friends there now?

Ever actually read the opinions of people in western European and their inability to understand why Americans put up with the sort of economic bullshit that politicians force down the throats of Americans?

This is a pretty interesting article about the way in which the middle class in the U.S. would be better off with European-style social democracy.

http://www.alternet.org/world/147859/were_you_born_on_the_wrong_continent_why_you%27d_probably_be_healthier_and_wealthier_in_germany/

[apocalypsehow]

34. Sweden just elected a far-right government into power. You may want to catch up with current events.

[ShamelessHussy]

38. a bot, in an infinite loop, i presume

:shrug:

[RainDog]

40. just typical studity. n/t

[Enthusiast]

59. You don't have clue

as to what constitutes "far-right" in the Sweden context. Take you RW bullshit back to Freeperland where it belongs.

[SammyWinstonJack]

68. What's the matter with Kansas?

:silly:

[pampango]

187. The far-right anti-immigration party got 5% of the vote - not elected "into power".

The 5% was enough to get reps elected for the first time. The center-right coalition did get the most reps elected (but not enough for a majority in parliament), but refuses to deal with the far-right Sweden Democrats, so the latter will have no influence over government policy.

[RainDog]

216. Since you chose to remain ignorant... the right wing gained 20 seats out of 349

they did not win. they are hoping to be able to keep the two major parties from governing.

but thanks for showing what an interesting pov you have.

[apocalypsehow]

35. Thanks for giving me so many opportunities to educate you on a simple fact, BTW.

:thumbsup:

[RainDog]

39. actually, you're demonstrating that you are, seemingly, lacking in critical thinking skills

but that's not surprising.

what you are demonstrating is that you are incapable of understanding two different topics.

however, feel free to post this statement as many times as you like. It doesn't change the reality that a Swedish moderate conservative coalition in no way resembles what these terms would mean in the U.S.

It's pretty funny that you're so uninformed that you can repeatedly post this and think you are stating anything of value. but knock yourself out.

I'm always amused by the level of stupidity that too many (usually conservative) American display about European politics.

[RaleighNCDUer]

47. Gets paid by the post? nt

[RainDog]

75. overcome your ignorance yet?

didn't think so...

[RainDog]

79. have you had a chance to overcome your ignorance yet?

thank you for the chance to demonstrate that you have nothing of substance to say. you remind me of a child who cannot win an argument based upon merit so you simply repeat the same stupid bullshit.

...or, actually, you remind me of Fox News.

or, maybe the two are one and the same. childish stupidity and Fox News, that is.

you... just ignorant, I suppose.

[RaleighNCDUer]

46. Far right - you mean, like US Democrats, then. nt

[txlibdem]

63. Far right in Europe is less "right wing" than center-left pols here in the USofA

The words do not have the same definitions here as in Europe.

Also I want to echo that the elites NEED to maintain complete control over all media lest the truth accidentally get out.

[RainDog]

76. exactly

but the only two posts here that try to argue against this study have nothing but their own ignorance to support their statements.

[txlibdem]

124. The labels "Far Right" and "Liberal" have been coopted by the MSM

The puppet show continues to enthrall us and capture our attention.
"Keep focusing on those impressive sports teams. Wow. Did you see that?"
"Look at this cool new gadget. You NEED it."
"Just put it on your credit card. You can pay it off sometime later."
"Fear the terrorists!!!"
"Fear the sectarians in Iraq!!!"
"Fear the unions."
"Fear the Muslims."
"Fear the ..."

Meanwhile they redefine the ThinkSpeak again and again. Liberal is now a dirty word. Right wing is not. Exactly backwards. The anti-science, anti-intellectual, anti-freedom (while claiming to be PRO freedom) Rethugs are making stupidity cool (Palin), sociopaths mainstream (O'Donnell, Whitman, Angle, Joe Miller in Alaska), and their crimes go unpunished.

How crazy is that?!?

[Iterate]

122. Not so fast: Alliance won "without majority"

"far-right" it is certainly not, and being two seats short of a majority may even form a new coalition with the Red-Green bloc. You do understand parliamentary politics don't you? Eight viable parties, in coalitions, slim margins, making demands and concessions?

Stockholm News:
http://www.stockholmnews.com/default.aspx?CID=3

"791 votes short of majority"
http://www.stockholmnews.com/more.aspx?NID=5990

[RainDog]

147. thank you for trying to educate this idiotic mindset of some in this nation

because, yes, that's what's the matter with Kansas.

[Diclotican]

123. apocalypsehow

apocalypsehow

Wrong.. Sverige Demokratene are still not in the power, it is the moderaterene who have the prime minister, and therefore the government, Most of the political parti'es in Sweden are not to happy about that Sverige Demokratene are on a "tipping" point when it came to the government, but I would say that Moderaterene would try to get friendly with others, than Sverige Demokratene, and maybe work with other center/right party in Riksdagen, rather than going in bed with a far right party like Sverige Demokratene. And if Moderaterene have it is way, Sverige Demokratene would not anymore near the government the next 4 year, than it was 15 year ago, when many of them was fighing in the street against "lefties" and trying to be cool, flying swastika and salute with a raised hand in facism tradition...

It is maybe you who want to catch up to current events. As the system they do have in Sweden, can be interesting to look at. Its called Parlamentarism, a far different system from what US have, but similar to what is the case in UK... Who is the "Mother" of all Parlamentaric systems in the world..

Diclotican

[RainDog]

149. thanks for providing information - this person has been owned

but may be too blind to know it.

[Diclotican]

155. RainDog

RainDog

Yeah, he is owned all the way, but I guess he do not know about it at all....

It is _not_ the same as have won a lot of votes, as get the prime minister.. That is also a figh on its own.. And Sverige Demokratene are not THAT big, I belive them to either 3th or 4th biggest party in Riksdagen... That is NOT big as some want to tell you... And I guess even Moderateane and sossaene (the conservatives and social-democratic) could work togheter, to keep SD out of office... Even they might have some issues political speaking, they know what the "enemy" are...

Diclotican

[Forkboy]

192. He knows it, but I bet he's too afraid to come back and admit it.

[defendandprotect]

29. Exactly ... America is a LIBERAL nation ....and that's why elites have to control all of MSM ....

including publishing houses - and all communication!

Truth is dangerous to their myths --

a word of truth is like a pebble hitting a mirror -- it shatters it!



And, btw, Chomsky has been telling us this for decades -- "liberal" America!!

[Enthusiast]

60. "Truth is dangerous to their myths"

That's why their heads explode when you tell them the truth.

Remember the phone call to Glenn Beck when the caller had the audacity to disagree with him? Beck nearly had a coronary on the spot. "Get off of my phone!" The truth scares them to fucking death.

[defendandprotect]

80. .. especially when they think that it might wake up those they've been lying to -- !!

[Enthusiast]

158. Yes, that is the reason behind their fear.

We know it!

[Kringle]

43. wont work in the US

Sweden has a trade surplus.

which allows you more options
in spending money,
and you also tend to have fewer poor people

US has a trade deficeit

[RandomThoughts]

48. What event in the last decade most lowered the trade deficit.

Also, why do we ship wood products across the ocean to be shipped back to America as furniture, that sure uses up alot of oil, and if the economies were closer together, in cost of production and wages that waste would not occur.

Two ways to do that, go down to the lower standard of living of other countries, or raise standards on countries that export to a market to bring up exporters standards.

Not that complicated, and energy independence, would make a huge dent in that issue.


I would also be interested in knowing how much of creation of wealth in financial sector is part of those numbers.

[Enthusiast]

65. When we can export our

raw wood only to have it return as finished products it should raise an alarm that something is essentially unfair about the nature our trade agreements. How many thousands of miles is that? A two way trip to Asia has to cut increase the cost of production significantly no matter how you look at it. These trade agreements should be re-examined.

[pokercat999]

67. There is a third maybe easier way and that would be to tax the

imports to cover the difference in manufacturing costs between the countries.

[FredStembottom]

104. Yes, tariffs.

Tariffs level the playing field allowing us to have wages higher than the 3rd world norm.

[FredStembottom]

106. BTW, "tariffs" another demonized word.

And yet, that's what worked for about 204 years here.
The (fetishized by the RW) Founding Fathers set them up immediately.

[Enthusiast]

186. This is what I have always wanted.

At least we should have tariffs equal to the breaks manufacturers get from no environmental and worker health and safety concerns. That would be free trade.

[Enthusiast]

62. Why do you suppose

Sweden has a trade surplus?

I contend it is because they have reasonable trade laws that protect their essential industry, unlike the U.S. that has "free trade" (in name only) agreements.

U.S. trade agreements were written by and for the corporations, workers be damned.

I seriously doubt that Sweden considers their corporations to have the same rights as their citizens.

[txlibdem]

64. Please run for congress!

I wish we could get about 400 like you in the House and another 70 in the Senate. You can be Pres.

[Enthusiast]

66. It is only common sense

that a nation would want to protect the interests of its citizen workers. But our corporations see the American worker as an obstacle to overcome regardless of the long term repercussions. Our corporations have been allowed to amass too much power and influence.

[Peace Patriot]

81. "Our" corporations are MULTINATIONAL corporations with loyalty to NO ONE.

They may still be chartered here, or they may be chartered in Dubai or Singapore. Doesn't matter. They are like gigantic "floating countries," shifting money, resources and jobs around the world, where their dealings are with bought and paid for leaders, in various ports of call, starting with this one. The multi-billionaires and "golden parachuted" execs and big fat investors in these traitorous world entities LAUGH AT our "quaint" notions of democracy, fairness, "a government of laws not men," and "the will of the people." With their vast eternal, ever-increasing wealth and power, they bribe and bully their way around the world, collecting governments. And where did they get this ungodly wealth that gives them such power--originally? From American workers, American infrastructure, America's once topnotch educational system, America's once non-corrupt legal system and other common foundations that we have all paid for and constructed.

These MULTINATIONAL corporations have done us in--not to mention the crimes that they are committing elsewhere (slave labor, resource rape, repression, assassination of trade unionists, destruction of democracy). We ought to be de-chartering them wherever they are still chartered in some U.S. state, dismantling them and seizing their assets for the public good, or banning them from our shores if they have already taken their headquarters elsewhere.

Here's what the Bolivians did to Bechtel corp., which had been invited in by the prior rightwing government, and had proceeded to "privatize" the water system in one Bolivian city (Cochabamba), and then jacked up the price of water to the very poor and even tried to charge poor peasants for collecting rainwater! The Bolivians shut down the city, and drove Bechtel out of Bolivia! (They also elected one of the leaders of the strike, Evo Morales, as president.)

Here's what Ecuador did to Dyncorp--the private contractor that was running the U.S. military base at Manta, Ecuador. They elected Rafael Correa as president, who promised during his campaign to do the will of the people--to kick Dyncorp and their U.S. military base out of the country--and, once elected by an overwhelming majority, proceeded to do just that.

Here's what Venezuela did to Exxon Mobil. They elected Hugo Chavez, who renegotiated Venezuela's oil contracts, to give Venezuela a better deal. Prior governments were giving away the oil, in a 10/90 split, favoring multinational corporations (and raking some off the top for Venezuela's rich oil elite). The Chavez government demanded a 50/50 split, favoring Venezuela and its social programs (education, health care, etc.). Exxon Mobil walked out of the talks in a snit. The Chavez government said, 'goodbye to you,' and got their better deal for Venezuela from everybody else--numerous corporations, from numerous countries, lusting after Venezuela's oil (the biggest oil reserve on earth--twice Saudi Arabia's, according to a recent USGS study).

These are among the reasons why our government, no matter who's in charge, HATES Venezuela, Ecuador and Bolivia. Cuz our government doesn't serve us. We know who they serve.

Our situation is more complex and our people more difficult to organize. Granted. I won't go into the many strategic problems we face in throwing these MULTINATIONAL corporate monsters off our backs. I would just say this: The Bolivians, the Ecuadorans and the Venezuelans--and other people of the south who have successfully rebelled--started SOMEWHERE. The odds were very much against them. They were far poorer than we are and far more oppressed. Somehow they did it. And if they can do it, so can we.

I also know that the basic, necessary condition for their success has been transparent, honest, aboveboard elections--something we have entirely lost. Our elections are not only filthy with corporate campaign contributions, they are now tabulated with 'TRADE SECRET,' PROPRIETARY programming code, with virtually no audit/recount controls, and this system is now 80% owned and controlled by ONE, private, far rightwing-connected, MULTINATIONAL corporation--ES&S (which just bought out Diebold). I recommend that we start there. We need to restore transparent vote counting. It's not the only thing wrong; but, without it, we have no chance at all to change things. And it is still doable. Power over voting systems still resides at the state/local level, where ordinary people have more potential influence than we do in Washington DC. THERE IS NO FEDERAL LAW requiring these machines. Not yet anyway. This coup was accomplished by corruption--a $3.9 billion e-voting boondoggle from the Anthrax Congress. We need a new civil rights movement, in every jurisdiction in the country, fighting LOCALLY, as the first civil rights movement did--town by town, county by county, state by state, demanding civil and voting rights for black citizens. Your country registrar, who makes these decisions, may live right down the street from you. This is, and needs to be, a local struggle--a struggle against local, entrenched establishments--just like the first civil rights movement. Don't expect Congress to fix this. They won't.

I would like to see us ordinary citizens back in our polling stations hand-counting paper ballots. But here's an example of something else: In Venezuela, they use electronic voting, but it is an OPEN SOURCE CODE system--anyone may review the code by which the votes are tabulated--and they do a whopping 55% audit (check of the ballots against machine fraud)--more than five times the percentage needed to detect fraud in an electronic system. (That is why they have universal free medical care and we don't!).

Our system is run on 'TRADE SECRET' code--code that we, the people, are banned from reviewing--and half the states do NO AUDIT AT ALL, while the other half do a miserably inadequate 1% audit. And it's all largely controlled by ONE private corporation. It IS possible to employ electronics HONESTLY. Our system is so corrupt, though--and so hostile to the public (with the culture of corporate secrecy that has invaded the entire system), that I think we need to go back to counting paper ballots, one by one, entirely in public view. We need to get the people back into the system.

[Enthusiast]

162. Thank you so much, Peace Patriot.

What an incredible post!

You give me a reason to hope. I agree with your every word. And I was aware of the reason behind the hatred of the 'so-called' socialist governments in South America. You're the one we should have in office. But, as you say, it will take activism at the local level-every local level.

[Demeter]

185. This needs to be posted independently

Thanks for the facts!

[txlibdem]

127. Multinationals don't give a crap about America or American consumers

They are putting all their eggs in the Chinese consumers basket. They're dreaming lustily of all those 1 Billion consumers (who are babes in the woods BTW) who are ripe for the robbing. What they don't realize is that every product they bring to China is copied and mass produced by one or more competitors within months of its release. The Chinese do not want to buy the US product, they buy "Chinese" stuff almost exclusively. So their stupidity will destroy the middle class here but in the end it will also destroy these companies themselves as well. It will be too late for everyone concerned when they realize this, however, because corps can't think long term.

Look at Nike shoes. Have their prices gone down in the last decade? No. But they closed down all their factories in the west and make them in sweat shops exclusively. That is why I haven't bought a Nike product in around 10 years. They contract out the factory in some 3rd world area until the workers start to organize or to demand non-slave labor wages. Then they close down the factory and move to another part of the world. Honduras, China, Indonesia. They have contracted with around 700 facilities worldwide.

"It's no secret that the global economy hasn't exactly been a boon to the labor movement. But globalization can be cruelest to the Third World employees it was supposed to raise out of poverty. As developing countries compete for investment from large foreign corporations, they all too often push workers' wages, benefits and rights so low that many of them ought to be called sweatshop nations today instead of banana republics. (See portraits of China's factory workers.)

Case in point: In January 2009, 1,800 laborers lost their jobs in Honduras when two local factories that made shirts for the U.S. sports-apparel giant Nike suddenly closed their doors and did not pay workers the $2 million in severance and other unemployment aid they were due by law."

http://www.time.com/time/business/article/0,8599,2006646,00.html

"During the 1990s, Nike faced criticism for use of child labor in Cambodia and Pakistan in factories it contracted to manufacture soccer balls. Although Nike took action to curb or at least reduce the practice of child labor, they continue to contract their production to companies that operate in areas where inadequate regulation and monitoring make it hard to ensure that child labor is not being used.<28>

In 2001 a BBC documentary uncovered occurrences of child labor and poor working conditions in a Cambodian factory used by Nike.<29> In the documentary, six girls were focused on, all of whom worked seven days a week, often 16 hours a day."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nike,_Inc.#Manufacturing

Nike is only one company out of the thousands that are committing these crimes against humanity. They are probably not even the worst of the lot. But ask yourself before you buy that Nike product: can I be positive that this item was NOT made by forced child labor? The answer is no, no, a thousand times NO.

[Enthusiast]

163. Plus One!

Thank you, txlibdem. Please continue to contribute like the post above. I like to say the multi-nationals don't pledge allegiance to our flag. They have allegiance to none.

[pampango]

173. Sweden belongs to the EU and WTO. It trades more than the US and has more "free trade".

The prosperity of the Swedish people and the equitable distribution of income there are not due to different trading laws (unless you consider more "liberal" trading laws to be "different"), but the progressive policies the government uses to support its citizens, e.g. progressive taxation, a strong social safety net, strong unions, and effective corporate regulation.

[indimuse]

49. KNR! n/t

[indimuse]

KNR! n/t

[indimuse]

KNR! n/t

[indimuse]

50. KNR! n/t

[indimuse]

51. KNR! n/t

[indimuse]

52. KNR! n/t

[Mosaic]

54. Very encouraging, I'll post this on my blog

A social democracy is just what the doctor ordered for our suffering nation abused by an evil and outdated system.

[Enthusiast]

56. It really doesn't matter

what the American people want. The main concern is what the corporations want.

[SammyWinstonJack]

69. +1000

:thumbsup:

[sam sarrha]

71. the top 1% richest Americans hold 42% of the Nations Financial wealth.. the bottom 80% has 7%

http://sociology.ucsc.edu/whorulesamerica/power/wealth....

the top 1% richest Americans hold 42% of the Nations Financial wealth.. the bottom 80% has 7% and 72% of debt

the top 1% has 6 times the financial wealth of the lowest 80% .. that is why there is a recession, this is why the Great Depression happened.. my mother said there was lots of work.. but no one could get hold of a nickle, the GOP removed the laws set up after the Depression to prevent it from happening again. before those laws there was a Serious Recession every 15 years due to what Wall Street was allowed to keep doing.

i am Not a Democrat, i am an Anti_Fascist the title of this post really defines Fascism, the Draconian Brutality associated with Fascism happens when the PeeOn's, formerly known as 'Trickle Down', start complaining their children start starving and they realize they voted for the wrong party again..

[southernyankeebelle]

82. You got democratics who are afraid to lead. Until they get their heads out of the asses we will

continue to see the destruction of this country. We need to change conservative democratics who aren't democratics. Until we do that and the democratics get some balls forgetaboutit.

[defendandprotect]

204. Democrats aren't "afraid" .... they are serving their corporate sponsors .....

and that sure ain't the voter!!

[ProSense]

83. Those 92 percent of Americans need

to stop voting for Republicans, that is unless they think Republicans are going to deliver a Swedish-style democracy?

[RainDog]

85. we need a media that is not owned by the right wing

we need politicians that are not owned by the right wing.

we need people to get out and vote - but they don't, too often, because they think they have no real choices.

we need education that shows people the real levels of income and wealth disparity in this nation - one remarkable feature of this study is that Americans are so ignorant of their own economic interests and the reality of economic injustice in the U.S.

if we had more Alan Graysons and fewer Ben Nelsons as choices put forward by the Democratic party - we might see more voter enthusiasm.

The problem is that we are not really given choices that represent our economic interests - and we hear right wing lies 24/7 in the American media.

It's no surprise that people vote against their economic interests when they hear so many lies that are repeated ad nauseum.

Democrats should also stop trying to be Republicans lite.

Surely you know that the last two elections which gave Democrats the majority are not an indication that Americans want Republican policies... yet Democrats who refuse to govern from the left are part of the problem.

[ProSense]

88. That's a mouthful

we need a media that is not owned by the right wing

we need people to get out and vote - but they don't, too often, because they think they have no real choices.

we need people to get out and vote - but they don't, too often, because they think they have no real choices.

<...>

if we had more Alan Graysons and fewer Ben Nelsons as choices put forward by the Democratic party - we might see more voter enthusiasm.

You know what: It's all about your first point. American believe they don't have choice because the media convinces them of that.

Kerry made this point a couple of days ago:

“We have an electorate that doesn’t always pay that much attention to what’s going on so people are influenced by a simple slogan rather than the facts or the truth or what’s happening,” Kerry told reporters after touring the Boston Medical Center yesterday.

Spot on, and needs to be repeated. Fox Noise and the RW media thrive on distorting the facts, and many voters have no idea they're not getting the facts.

Grayson is running for office, and every election year there is someone that takes the spotlight, and even still, his exposure is limited. He wants to win.

He is no different from most Democrats. In fact, there are many a lot more progressive than he is.


"Democrats should also stop trying to be Republicans lite."

And that's the other problem, repeating the claim that somehow a party that votes to strengthen unions and repeal DADT is Republican lite.

The party isn't perfect, there are still a few conservative Democrats in the mix, but the majority of the party stands in stark contrast to Republicans.

Maybe more Democrats would move the country to the left, and then there would be a chance to pick and choose better elected officials. Constantly allowing Republicans to gain ground during elections, Americans have a choice, isn't going to lead to a Swedish-style democracy ever!

[RainDog]

89. education is key

and education should not be owned by corporate interests.

the fetish that private is better than public is a large part of the problem. who gains by this rhetoric? not the American people.

[ProSense]

90. Education?

The RW owning the media has nothing to do with the education system.

The RW media conglomerate needs to be broken up.

[RainDog]

93. Education takes place via information programs, not just in the classroom

but it starts with education that is not beholden to idiots like the Texas school board system.

it's no accident that Americans, with the highest rates of right wing religious beliefs, believe other myths as well. if you can make people believe the world is only 6000 years old despite the overwhelming scientific evidence that absolutely proves otherwise, you can make them believe anything.

they believe anything because they are taught lies outside of the classroom. that's where the lies begin.

[ProSense]

96. It's the media, and

they don't give a damn about the education system. They're not connected.

[treestar]

101. As a self governing people, we should not wait to be "given" those

choices! We could pay attention. We could make those choices of candidates that reflect what we want. Yes we can - shut off the teevee and the pundits and start thinking for ourselves. If we fail to do that, it's no good sitting around claiming to be victims who weren't "given" what they were supposed to be "given." It's so passive. You're even using the passive voice.

[Enthusiast]

188. Plus one!

Especially on the media.

[treestar]

100. this pretty much says it

If that's what they want, why aren't there more progressives in Congress?

[ProSense]

105. You'd think members of Congress

elect themselves. Maybe 92 percent of Americans say they want a Swedish-style democracy, but 47 percent of them voted for John McCain and Senator Feingold is fighting for his seat against a teabagger.

[Raster]

154. Indeed they do, ProSense. Indeed they do. And the Democrats can do their part by

not acting like Republicans.

[keep_it_real]

86. Want is Swedish-Style Democracy and Income (Tax) Redistribution?

Sorry I am not familiar with Swedish-Style Democracy and Income Tax system.

[RainDog]

87. you can go to the article link and read the pdf from the study

what the study indicates is that Americans overwhelming favor equitable income distribution.

Sweden has tax rates as high as 90% - on the extremely wealthy (and yes, European nations have extremely wealthy people, too.. they just pay taxes.)

The people who did the study used Sweden's model as one example w/o labeling it as such for the study - in other words, people were responding to the idea, not the label.

Sweden has an excellent education system that is sponsored by tax dollars - a public education system. They have a social safety net. They have excellent child care and maternity policies that encourage families to spend time with their children. They make life affordable for people even if they were not born with inherited wealth...

These programs come about because of income redistribution in the form of income tax.

[earcandle]

92. Now that sounds intelligent and more likely the Americans I feel connected to inside the myth I was

raised up in.  The people have spoken.  Now... WHO IS OUR NEW
LEADER WHO CAN DELIVER THIS COMMONALITY in this next election?
 

[RainDog]

94. have to go now - kick for truth. n/t

[ChiciB1]

95. While It's Said By MANY Here, REVOLUTION ISN'T THE ANSWER...

I would like for someone to tell WHAT IS THE ANSWER?? It's certainly NOT VOTING them out because THEY have the money, and so many of us have NO REAL CHOICE!!

I LIVE in Florida and a RUBY RED District that has ONLY EVER elected Repukes, and NOW we have a person running for the Senate who is nothing more than a TEA-BAGGER and looks like he might just become my second Senator! Add THAT to the fact that I have ANOTHER Senator who is pretty DLC for the most part!

THEY have the money, Bill Nelson NEVER has any real opposition, so DO TELL, what IS THE ANSWER??

I've given up on my county because a person who has MANY, MANY lawsuits against him has gotten elected TWICE and is running again AND WILL get elected again! Before that my representative was KATHERINE "Cruelly" HARRIS!!

I'm just about to become a Roley-ploy bug, or pill bug, whatever you want to call it and just CRAWL away! I'm pretty sure I'm a NON-PERSON by now!!

I think I'll start playing the LOTTERY every week now, if I can find the money... MAYBE there's "some" chance of "luck" there! Kidding of course, haven't played in years, but BOY there are times that I see THIS as the only way out! Take the MONEY and run to Costa Rica of somewhere!

[LawnKorn]

107. I disagree with the 40% conservative number

It has been my unscientifically founded experience that conservatives are around 20% with left of center people numbering around 60%.

There is quite a bit to be said for employing selective use of the tax code to narrow the gap between the lowest of wage earners and the wealth of the idle rich. The closer we approach equality of income, the closer we will approach equality of outcome for the citizens born in this country.

[LawnKorn]

108. K&R

[felix_numinous]

109. If progressives could break out of the MSM CONditioning

we would know that to harness our sanity and numbers, we would be a force to be reckoned with.

Fox RW propaganda's main aim is to psych out the left by convincing us they are more powerful and numerous than us. Fox saturates public places with their broadcasts, and calculates that into their ratings numbers. The netroots nation is vast and international, I think it will be good to see our numbers in Oct 2nd--good for morale!! :)

[FredStembottom]

110. Kick

Post-election we march ahead.
We stop hoping.
We keep this info in mind at all times.
We act.

[dkf]

111. But here is the policy point...

"The authors also note that, though there may be widespread agreement about income inequality, there is no agreement on what caused it or what should be done about it.

"Americans exhibit a general disconnect between their attitudes towards economic inequality and their self-interest and public policy preferences, suggesting that even given increased awareness of the gap between ideal and actual wealth distributions, Americans may remain unlikely to advocate for policies that would narrow this gap," the authors argue."

From the article listed above.

[RainDog]

146. yes. this is an important point from the article

this is why education is essential.

in the U.S. media we constantly hear scare stories about how fragile the economies are in northern Europe - and this is a lie. but you can read it or hear it nearly every month in the major U.S. media outlets and papers like the WSJ.

Educating the public about facts like the Bush tax cuts created negative job growth - that's a start.

Educating the public about facts like the value of a social safety net in times of economic downturn is important - and we have those facts available to us from the last few years.

The problem, again, is that the media does a huge disservice to the American people.

The religious right in this nation has spent YEARS lying to their congregations and equating northern Europe with all things bad (and with "godless commies," - tho they are less religious than Americans - Scalia refers to Europe as "post Christian as a negative... but that was when he was trying to use religion to argue that the death penalty is godly... this is the sort of sick, sick shit that Americans hear from powerful people in this nation.

We need a thousand Welch's to say to the closeted and self-hating homosexual talibornagains and the McCarthyite Republicans: You've done enough. Have you no sense of decency, sirs, at long last? Have you left no sense of decency?

Because that's what this comes down to - lies that harm the American public and that do not deliver the good government they want and deserve.

[Edweird]

112. K & R for the truth.

[tnlurker]

113. K&R

[L0oniX]

114. K & R

[Name removed]

116. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[clarence swinney]

117. Socialist Happiest

Polls show it consistently.
Now most unequal of majors.
2008
1% owned 43% Total Financial Wealth
80% or 120,000,000 owned 7%
1% got 24% Total Income
2001-2009 top 1% got two thirds of all Income Growth
90% got 10%

Bush in 8 created 31,000 net new jobs per month lowest since Hoover.

Rich got very rich.
olduglymeanhonest

[Bryn]

120. K&R

[valerief]

126. I'll bet 98% of Americans would like a teevee network that told the truth 24/7

instead of lied 24/7.

[asdjrocky]

130. K&R.

Good post. :hi:

[KansDem]

131. Works for me!!!

I wonder if this is scaring the shit out of our oligarchy?

:dem:

[Tippy]

134. K&R...highly recomed

[golddigger]

135. A Big K&R.

[Faygo Kid]

137. Yumpin' Yiminy! You bet, for sure. Half Swedish here, and I approve this message.

Mom's family emigrated from Sweden, Dad's from Norway.

I am so conflicted.

[DesertFlower]

138. K&R. nt

[awoke_in_2003]

140. If I had the money to emigrate...

it would be to a Scandinavian country- yeah, it might be cold, but atheists make up a LARGE part of their populations.

[Uncle Joe]

144. Kicked and recommended.

Thanks for the thread, Raindog.

[irislake]

148. Chomsky has said this all along.

The corporate American media gives a very misleading (and unflattering) picture of the American people.

[Jade Fox]

151. The gap between what Americans really want.....

and what the media promotes gets bigger all the time, due to the well-funded efforts of the Right. This situation has way too many people confused (including those in the govt), and has brought progress in this country to a standstill.

[myrna minx]

153. K&R

:applause: Great post.

[femrap]

156. How do these damned

PTB get away with this shit? Well, there's Murdoch who does his best to spew tons of propaganda. And the dismantling of a decent public educational system.

Anyone else got some ideas? Where are these PTB and why can't we make a citizen's arrest?

[RainDog]

157. They have been fighting against the American people's interests since FDR

and back then, some were willing to murder the president of the United States to install a fascist dictator. (c.f. General Smedley Butler's War is a Racket and his House testimony about the same.)

They are the enemy of the American people, sad to say.

When the fascists lost in western Europe, the American govt kept "stay-behinds" to try to undermine social democracy in those nations. But the majority of the fascists are still right here in the U.S. They call themselves Republicans and Fox News and the Southern Baptist Convention here, tho.

This is the ugly truth about American society.

[Kalyke]

159. Buried on page A16 of my local paper, while the Tea Baggers

have a full front-page color story.

Sigh.

[BrklynLiberal]

161. Too bad what the PEOPLE want is of no importance to the vast majority of those in the position to

make the decisions that would implement those things.

[truedelphi]

164. K & R. Too bad that the Powerful on both Sides of the Aisle are

Selling Us Out.

My pessimism stems not only from my own gut feelings, but from the information that Matt Taibbi provides in his Rolling Stone articles.

When Taibbi reports on how Reid ignored thwarted and subverted the Dems in Congress who wanted a Financial Reform Act with some real TEETH to it, and instead Reid went and buddied up to two Republicans to weaken the Act, I stand informed of the TRUTH and the FACTS about how bad the problem is.

[RufusTFirefly]

165. The data are almost 5 years old.

Not a complaint necessarily, but a response to those who suggest that the recent rightward shift in the Swedish government nullifies the meaning of "Swedish model."

[Name removed]

166. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[RufusTFirefly]

168. Top tax rate under Republican Eisenhower was 91 percent

Read it and weep.

[RainDog]

169. Take it up with the guys who did the study

I'm just passing along the information.

Did you read the pdf? Did you join DU just to call me a liar? LOL. good. glad it made you angry.

They are the ones who, in the article, say that Americans prefer the Swedish model. The article puts the information in context with this paragraph:

Disagreements about the optimal level of wealth inequality underlie policy debates ranging from taxation to welfare. We attempt to insert the desires of "regular" Americans into these debates, by asking a nationally representative online panel to estimate the current distribution of wealth in the United States and to "build a better America" by constructing distribution with their ideal level of inequality. First, respondents dramatically underestimated the current level of wealth inequality. Second, respondents contructed ideal wealth distributions that were far more equitable than even their erroneously low estimates of actual distribution. Most importantly from a policy perspective, we observed a surprising level of consensus: All demographic groups -- even those usually not associated with wealth distribution such as Republicans and the wealthy -- desired a more equal distribution of wealth than the status quo.

iow, you are (probably purposefully) misinterpreting the study.

and, just to say... LOLOL!!!! My "handlers" on this forum? You sound like you might need to check your tin foil and adjust your settings because you sound like more than a bit of your beckerhead is exploding.

I bet it just kills you to know that most Americans are not as nasty and full of putrid hatred as you are.

oops.

[RainDog]

171. btw, I bet you're on medicare

or one of your family members is. and I bet you're all for it. most right wing idiots are just this stupid and hypocritical.

are you the guy with the sign that reads, "Get a clue, Morans?"

did you hope to "refudiate" this study from two professors at two of the most prestigious universities in the U.S.?

[flvegan]

174. Speaking of "tired strategy"

7 posts to proving oneself a douchebag. Yeah, pretty tired.

[Critters2]

175. "You Dems"? I'll bet someone will be willing to share some pizza

with you soon! :)

[RainDog]

176. I'm still trying to find my handlers... wtf??!?!

:rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl:

[Critters2]

177. Get out of his pocket!

:rofl:

[RainDog]

178. is that a handler in your pocket or are you happy to see me?

:silly:

[Dr. Strange]

180. I'm here.

Handle, handle.

[Commie Pinko Dirtbag]

179. Ooooo, a live one.

Hey.

Fuck you.

You're a chimpanzee flinging feces.

You are to be pointed at and laughed at.

[Overseas]

170. I was fascinated by different paragraphs in the study, showing how Americans underestimate

wealth inequality in the USA. Propaganda has successfully distracted Americans from recognizing the great inequality that built up again since the Reagan era and moved right on to the Bush Crash and Bush Bailout.

But in their study, the authors found Americans generally underestimate the income disparity. When asked to estimate, respondents on average estimated that the top 20 percent have 59 percent of the wealth (as opposed to the real number, 84 percent). And when asked to choose how much the top 20 percent should have, on average respondents said 32 percent -- a number similar to the wealth distribution seen in Sweden.

"What is most striking" about the results, argue the authors, is that they show "more consensus than disagreement among ... different demographic groups. All groups – even the wealthiest respondents – desired a more equal distribution of wealth than what they estimated the current United States level to be, while all groups also desired some inequality – even the poorest respondents."

The authors suggest the reason that American voters have not made more of an issue of the growing income gap is that they may simply not be aware of it. "Second, just as people have erroneous beliefs about the actual level of wealth inequality, they may also hold overly optimistic beliefs about opportunities for social mobility in the United States, beliefs which in turn may drive support for unequal distributions of wealth," they write.

[RainDog]

172. yes. this is why education is essential. and how the media in the U.S. fail us every day. n/t

[Lugnut]

184. K&R n/t

[Blue_Tires]

190. kick

[avaistheone1]

193. How come they don't tell me this on the evening news?

:spray:


:sarcasm:

[Amonester]

195. Because the evening news bosses don't want to share their fortunes.

And the "news" anchors, producers, staff, etc. have high paying jobs and they don't want to lose them.

Not hard to figure it all.

[avaistheone1]

200. k&r

I hope you didn't miss my sarcasm smiley.

[suffragette]

194. K&R

Great study; great post.

[librechik]

198. Democrats sold all the media outlets they once owned to Republicans

When you have way too much money and willing accomplices in influential swing states, you can drive away liberals-- and conservatives did.

Now the Dems have no media strategy. None. if they get on TV they have to battle 2 to 1 with opponents who love to lie. The only way Americans hear the truth is by accident or by diligent searching.

Most don't have the time and have surrendered to the default position: They're All Crooked. Why bother to vote?

Just the way Cheap Labor Conservatives like it. And they aren't failing, they are succeeding to their wildest dreams.

[yurbud]

199. send this to Rahm, Obama, and every DLCer

[lovemyblackberry]

212. and a majority of Americans like the Arizona "get out of my state" law.

That doesn't mean its good for America.

[RainDog]

218. study after study indicates a strong middle class is the best indicator

a strong democracy around the world.

I think a strong democracy is good for America. If the wealthy don't like it, they can go fuck themselves.

[Iterate]

220. And a strong indicator throughout history

The notion that democracy can be installed at the point of a gun is a lie. It arises spontaneously when resources are distributed equitably among people or groups and I'm still looking after many years for an example of beneficial concentrations of wealth anywhere. Sure cathedrals can pop up, but more likely it will be an army.

The opposite is also true, and I'll see if I can look up those studies. When resource distribution falls below a certain threshold, democracy collapses and long-simmering violence results.

Even without the studies it shouldn't be so hard to imagine: Every five year old has a sense of fairness.

[txlibdem]

227. Oh, and I suppose you're also NOT ok with "Let them eat cake" either.

"There's just no pleeeezing you!" -- Gold Member

Sorry but I have to disagree with you. Anything can be imposed at the point of a gun. Anything. It just depends on the particular moral bent of the gun-pointer. Democracy did not spontaneously arise in America. We owned many, many guns and showed the King of England that we weren't shy about using them in order to build a more equitable society. Actually, I just can't think of a single example in the history of the world where Democracy has arisen spontaneously. Please enlighten me if I am wrong.

"Evil triumphs when Good Men do nothing" -- (paraphrasing) Edmund Burke, 1770

We are in complete agreement, however, on the topic of resource distribution and the devastating effects of inequity.

[RainDog]

217. Tim Noah, at Slate, weighs in on this topic

this same study has gotten the attention and prompted comment from Krugman as well. it's definitely a subject that makes Americans perk up.

http://www.slate.com/id/2268872/

Earlier this month I published a 10-part Slate series (PDF; serial version; slide show) about the 30-year rise in income inequality that Princeton's Paul Krugman has dubbed "The Great Divergence." In the first installment, I noted that in 1915, when the richest 1 percent accounted for about 18 percent of the nation's income, the prospect of class warfare was imminent. Today, the richest 1 percent account for 24 percent of the nation's income, yet the prospect of class warfare is utterly remote. Indeed, the political question foremost in Washington's mind is how thoroughly the political party more closely associated with the working class (that would be the Democrats) will get clobbered in the next election. Why aren't the bottom 99 percent marching in the streets?

One possible answer is sheer ignorance. People know we're living in a time of growing income inequality, Krugman told me, but "the ordinary person is not really aware of how big it is." The ignorance hypothesis gets a strong assist from a new paper for the journal Perspectives on Psychological Science...

...Americans' ignorance about wealth (and, probably, income) distribution is encouraging in the sense that it offers hope that most voters might opt for government policies more conducive to equality if only they knew how unequal things were. But it's dismaying in the sense that people who occupy a position of relative privilege seem to go out of their way to avoid acknowledging it.

Noah's series of articles was posted here previously. If this subject interests you, they're definitely worth reading.

what is the reason for this sheer ignorance, tho? An uninformed public. Why is the public uninformed? Because our media and politicians fail us because they don't care about the problems this income disparity (and govt. use of funds) causes for the vast majority of citizens.

[Blue_Tires]

228. ttt